MEGA-CHURCH MOVEMENT
		THE STRUCTURE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH       The contemporary church in America over the last couple of decades has been largely characterized by the mega-church or church-growth movement.  This movement promotes church growth through huge churches that are managed using strategies similar to corporations.  The pastor oversees the church as a CEO or rancher.  As a rancher, the pastor oversees multiple lay-leaders who each oversee a small cell group.  The pastor is not directly involved with each church member, but oversees lay-leaders who are.  This contrasts with the common idea that a pastor is to manage the church as a shepherd, being directly involved with each church member.  The rancher model was developed as a means to increase church growth, and it has worked.  This is the common management model of the mega-church pastor.  Thinking pragmatically, this structure is necessary for the management of a mega- church, but is it a biblical structure?  How does the mega-church structure align with the New Testament?  The Scriptures seem to support the idea that New Testament churches had a small church structure with the pastor following the shepherd model, rather than a mega- church structure with the pastor following the rancher model.       There are several places where New Testament churches are said to have met in houses.  Paul told the Roman believers to greet the church that met in Aquila and Priscilla’s house (Romans 16:5).  Evidently when they were in another city, perhaps Ephesus, they also used their house as a meeting place for believers (1 Corinthians 16:19).  In Laodicea, there was a man named Nymphas who also had a church in his house (Colossians 4:15).   Philemon used his house for worship services (Philemon 2).  It appears from these passages that house churches were common in the first century.       Two of the main reasons for meeting in homes were, 1) fear of persecution, and 2) lack of available, separate church buildings.  In his commentary on Romans, Griffith Thomas states, “For two or three centuries Christians met in private houses because they were not allowed to assemble in large numbers, and even if they had been permitted, they possessed no suitable buildings.”  It would be impossible to have a mega-church structure while having no mega- sized building in which to meet.  In his book on church history, Newman says, “Not until the first half of the third century did the Christians build houses of worship.”  This coincides with archaeology.  The earliest known building designed to be a church was built in the third century in Jordan.  Archaeologists have also uncovered a house in Syria that was converted into a church building dating from the early third century.       In the cities where there were New Testament churches, it appears there were multiple small churches rather than one large church.  Paul’s epistles written to the believers in the city of Rome, Ephesus, Philippi, and Colosse were addressed to all the saints in the city collectively, not to one church individually (Rom. 1:7; Eph. 1:1; Phil. 1:1; Col. 1:2).  The epistles to the Corinthians however were addressed using the singular word “church” (1 Cor. 1:2; 2 Cor. 1:1).  In this epistle it seems that Paul is using the word ‘church’ to denote all the believers meeting in all the assemblies in the city.  1 Corinthians 14:23 speaks about the whole church coming together into one place as if it was not a common occasion, and then in verse 34, he tells the women to keep silence in the “churches,” not the “church.”  Evidently there were several smaller church groups there in Corinth.  Collectively they were called “the church at Corinth,” but there were individual assemblies.  Also, the epistles to the Thessalonians were addressed using the singular word “church” (1 Th. 1:1; 2 Th. 1:2).  These epistles were probably written from Corinth shortly after Paul left the new believers in Thessalonica.#  If this is true, then it could be that there was still one single church group meeting in the city, or Paul could be using the word in the same sense that he did in Corinth.       One place in the New Testament where there is evidence of several small assemblies in one city is in Romans 16.  In verses 3-5, Paul asks the Roman believers to greet Aquila and Priscilla and the church in their house.  It appears like verses 6-13 continue to name some of the people who attended the church in their house.  In verse 14, Paul addresses another small assembly that the Romans are to greet.  This seems to be a separate group as Paul says to greet “the brethren which are with them.”  In verse 15, there appears to be another distinct assembly as Paul says to salute “all the saints which are with them.”  Paul could very well have been speaking of three different small churches in Rome.  Godet follows this same opinion in his commentary on Romans where he says, “The last words of both of the verses 14 and 15: and the brethren who are with them, prove that the persons just named are so, not simply as believers, but as directors of a whole assembly which is accustomed to meet around them.   They lived, no doubt, in different quarters, and formed, besides the group which met in the house of Aquilas, two distinct assemblies.”  The book of Romans gives a clear case of several local assemblies cooperating together in one city.  Paul wrote one epistle collectively to all of these churches.  There certainly was no mega-church structure in the city of Rome.       If it is understood that the common structure of New Testament churches was several small assemblies instead of one mega-church, then it helps explain what the Bible means when it speaks of many elders in one city.  In Acts 20:17, Paul called for the elders of the church at Ephesus to meet him at Miletus.  Later in verse 28, he exhorted those same elders to watch over and feed the church of God.  It makes sense that Paul is using the singular word “church” in the collective sense of several different assemblies all in agreement in the same city.  In Titus 1:5, Paul tells Titus to “ordain elders in every city.”  Titus would need to ordain an elder in each city if there was only one church per city, but he would need to ordain elders if each city had several different assemblies.  In Philippians 1:1, Paul addresses “all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi.”  As pointed out before, he does not use the singular word “church.”  He does use the plural word “bishops” though.  This is the word he would be expected to use if there were several small assemblies in the city of Philippi.       The closest thing resembling the mega-church structure in the New Testament is the church at Jerusalem in its early days.  According to Acts 2:41 and 4:4, there were over 8,000 believers in the new church.  Acts 2:46 and 5:42 say that they met every day in the temple and in homes.  This church was an exception to the normal structure of the church in latter years since it was in a unique situation.  This church was led by the twelve apostles, so it stands to reason that its structure would be unique.  It is interesting to note that the Jerusalem church did not continue with its unique structure very long.  According to Acts 8:4, when persecution arose, the believers were scattered.  This seems to coincide with God’s command in Acts 1: 8 to begin in Jerusalem and to move out from there.  Ironside hints that the persecution and scattering of the Jerusalem church was due in part to their hesitancy to move out from Jerusalem.  “God sometimes has to act through disagreeable circumstances in order to compel His saints to work in accordance with His plan for them...Up to the present, then, we have found the gospel going out in the city of Jerusalem and throughout Judea, but the disciples were very, very slow in fulfilling the rest of the program.”  It seems that God did not want the unique church structure in Jerusalem to be the norm for churches in the future.  While it is important to follow the spirit of the church in Jerusalem, it is not necessarily wise to follow its church structure.  It might be argued that God did not want a mega-church in Jerusalem.       Were there mega-churches in the New Testament like there are in America today?  It seems clear that the structure of the New Testament church was not like the structure of the modern mega-church.  Does this mean that the mega-church structure is necessarily wrong?   There certainly are no commands against it, but there are some potential problems with the structure.  The rancher model of ministry has a serious flaw in that the pastor cannot possibly watch over all the souls in his mega-church.  Hebrews 13:17 reminds pastors that they will have to give account for the souls in their flock.  How will the pastor of a mega-church give account to God for the souls of people they do not even know by name?  The mega-church structure sacrifices quality for quantity.       It is interesting to note that when the rancher model is laid out on paper it resembles the Episcopal form of church government.  If the mega-church with cell groups was a city instead of a church, the pastor/rancher would be a bishop, in the Episcopal sense of the word.  It seems consistent that the originator of the rancher concept, Lyle Schaller, is ordained in the United Methodist Church, which has an Episcopal form of government.  One must wonder how consistent the rancher concept is within a Baptist framework.       Also, the mega-church structure seems to be built on pragmatism rather than theology.   Before introducing the idea of ranching versus shepherding, Carl George gives an illustration of the triage system used by medical practitioners during times of emergency.  The system is based on the pragmatic idea that if it works it must be right.  The system attempts to help the greatest amount of people in the least amount of time.  Applying this concept to the church is problematic.  For the Christian it is never a question of what seems to work, but what is known to be right.  In Acts 8:26, God told Philip to leave a successful evangelistic campaign in Samaria and go to the desert.  This command goes completely contrary to pragmatic thought.  Would not Philip win more souls if he stayed in Samaria?  Philip obeyed God and won the Ethiopian eunuch to Christ.  God was not interested in a triage concept of ministry, but in the individual soul of the eunuch.  Another problem with the triage concept of ministry is that it has not worked.  In the book, Power Religion, Bill Hull says, “George Barna tells us that we are only replacing the dead, that the evangelical body is not growing.  Churches are growing by rearranging of the saints.  Evangelicals are simply playing ‘musical churches,’ moving around to more exciting, larger churches.”  The triage method has built big churches, but it has not been effective in winning souls.       It seems that the mega-church structure does not coincide with the church structure of the New Testament.  It is interesting that in the last few years a new movement has sprung up that more closely models the structure of the New Testament church.  The house church movement, though not without its own problems, is attracting people who are frustrated with the big structure of the mega-church.  It seems that even mega-church leader, Rick Warren, is sensitive to pastors who do not feel comfortable with the rancher model of ministry.  He counsels, “Ask yourself, ‘Would I be happy being a Rancher?’  If you answer no, then I suggest you take on a goal that your church will sponsor new churches - so you’re still growing, but in a different way.”  Perhaps this suggestion is closest to the biblical model of church structure.   Instead of growing to the point where the church has multiple cell groups and the pastor feels he needs to be a rancher, why not plant new churches with their own shepherd pastors? (This paper was written by Russell Boone for a graduate class at International Baptist College.)